T-60: the legendary light tank developed in 9 days

Despite the fact that by 1935 the USSR had 35 thousand in service. tanks, surpassing all European countries combined in this indicator, Soviet tank building reached its full potential during the Great Patriotic War. A variety of combat vehicles rolled off the factory assembly lines of our country, including real heavyweights like the IS-2.

Meanwhile, light tanks, one of which is the legendary T-60, undoubtedly played a major role in the Victory over the Wehrmacht and its allies.

Initially, in 1941, Soviet designers were tasked with developing a new generation light combat vehicle under the symbol T-50. It is worth noting that the military leadership of the USSR at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War relied on light class tanks, which were highly maneuverable and became formidable. weapons against enemy infantry.

In turn, Soviet design engineer Nikolai Aleksandrovich Astrov proposed not to create a tank “from scratch,” which would require quite a lot of time and money, but to modernize the existing T-40. The corresponding letter was sent to I.V. Stalin.

The very next day, Deputy Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR Vyacheslav Malyshev arrived at Moscow plant No. 37. Development of the T-60 started at the end of August 1941 and lasted only nine days. Already in September, the light tank began to arrive at the disposal of the Red Army.

The thickness of the frontal armor of the vehicle was 35 mm, the sides - 15 mm, and the rear - 10 mm at the top and 25 mm at the bottom.

The T-60 was armed with a 20 mm cannon with 780 rounds of ammunition. The latter could accurately hit direct fire at 2 km. Initially, fragmentation and incendiary shells were used. Later, the tank's ammunition included armor-piercing ones, penetrating armor up to 35 mm.

The crew of the car consisted of 2 people. The maximum speed of the tank reached 42 km/h with a cruising range of up to 350 km.

The T-60 performed well in the battles near Moscow, where Soviet crews fought with more powerful Wehrmacht vehicles and won. The tank experienced its baptism of fire as part of the 21st Tank Brigade in the battles for the city of Kalinin.

In total, from 1941 to 1943, more than 5400 T-60 tanks were produced.

Comments

[couch]

Our past craftsmen knew how to quickly build the thing they needed at the moment. The current ones can only quickly “cut up” the money given out!

[Justme]

A simple example.
In the second half of the 80s, the Research Institute of Physical Measurements (Penza) made a fool of itself in creating the ALE-033 accelerometer for testing penetrating warheads.
It was specifically explained to the director of the research institute, Volkov V.A., that he personally would be “faced on the table” and would be given a specific “bo-bo” if the situation was not corrected. Re-development of electronics behind the "authority" I I did it in 3 days and even managed to test it somehow. Then this accelerometer was produced for several years in small series and completely satisfied the customer.

In all my work at classical research institutes and design bureaus (1983-2012), there was a terribly lack of such “specificity” and clarity of problem statement. Of course, theoretically, the work of research institutes and design bureaus should be aimed at creating a worthy result, but the mass of leaders and the common public do not want this - they are often not competent, they have no enthusiasm. It’s much easier to extract resources, goodies, etc. under promises (or even actual blackmail, if you managed to monopolize the direction)

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: JustMe

In all my work at classical research institutes and design bureaus (1983-2012), there was a terribly lack of such “specificity” and clarity of problem statement. Of course, theoretically, the work of research institutes and design bureaus should be aimed at creating a worthy result, but the mass of leaders and the common public do not want this - they are often not competent, they have no enthusiasm. It’s much easier to extract resources, goodies, etc. under promises (or even actual blackmail, if you managed to monopolize the direction)

You're a freeloader. I don’t understand at all, what kind of sluggish person did the country feed you? I met these guys while picking apples in the 80s. All they did was mumble, why do we need this, and why don’t your girls give it to us?

[Justme]

No... That's not the problem...
A lot of people are used to chewing snot. These could be “great space leaders” in the space industry, “world-class specialists” in other industries, and also the mass of the common public.
There is a friend here who can do the development not in 1 year (standard typical cycle), but in a month (meaning the full cycle: development, production, adjustment, acceptance testing).
And the question arises:
- Aren’t all the above-mentioned audiences playing the fool?
And it is clear that there will always be an indignant commentator.

[AllX_VahhaB]

Quote: JustMe

- Aren’t all the above-mentioned audiences playing the fool?
And it is clear that there will always be an indignant commentator.

No.... he's just a foreman of apple pickers. He looks at it from a different point of view...

[Justme]

Jokes are jokes, and maybe he really was the foreman of the apple pickers,
but implicitly he raised a really systemic problem.
When, in some discussion at NIIFI, you very briefly, clearly and professionally outline your vision of the project or your understanding of the problem, this sometimes led the big boss into psychosis and poured all sorts of crap on you, which is not clear how it is related to the subject of discussion. When I was young, this put a lot of pressure on me.
The driving force behind this problem was that the first wave of leaders at NIIFI was formed back in the 60s and their level of intelligence remained at the level of a shabby provincial university in the early 60s. The second wave of bosses began to support already from the end of the 70s. They also wanted to go on important business trips to Moscow, taking women from the scientific sector. But all the important places were already taken, and the first wave was like a selection of long-livers. This made NIIFI a rare viper.
Sometimes highly intelligent and talented people like N.G. slipped into NIIFI. Zhegalina (author of the most outstanding direction at NIIFI). He was eventually exterminated.

[Justme]

Amazing!!!

You're a freeloader. I don’t understand at all, what kind of sluggish person did the country feed you? I met these guys while picking apples in the 80s. All they did was mumble, why do we need this, and why don’t your girls give it to us?

You managed to accurately reproduce the psychological atmosphere at NIIFI (Penza).
When a person has shown professionalism, hard work and saved the situation, the eyes of terribly envious and lazy people look at him from all the cracks.
Then, out of the blue, they start throwing mud at you (... and often in the form of gratitude), attributing your work to themselves... and so on...

[Viktor Sergeev]

The current ones can create magnificent weapons, I’m telling you this as a person from Tula.

[paul3390]

Nikolai Aleksandrovich Astrov proposed not to create a tank “from scratch”

Astrov proposed this out of desperation. Because plant No. 37, which was given a release order for the production of the T-50, was, in principle, incapable of this. I just didn’t have the appropriate machines or the capacity at all. And as a true Soviet man, Astrov not only stated that the plant could not produce tanks, but suggested an alternative. The tank, of course, was a terrible piece of junk even at that time, but it was, could be released in the shortest possible time, and had some kind of combat value...

The question remains open - who sent the order for the T-50 to the plant without even bothering to inquire about the real production possibilities?

[Altona]

Wehrmacht vehicles were also not unconditionally strong in the period 1941-1942. They are also relatively light tanks with not the most powerful guns, relatively average so to speak. Probably the 20mm T-60 cannon could effectively destroy the Zeiss optics and Bosch radio station on the conventional T-3, making it blind, deaf and falling out of the tactical link. It all depends on the tactics of using the vehicles and the skills of the crews, and not on the bare performance characteristics.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Altona

Wehrmacht vehicles were also not unconditionally strong in the period 1941-1942.

They corresponded to the tasks facing him, the T-60 did not

Quote: Altona

Probably the 20mm T-60 cannon could effectively destroy the Zeiss optics and Bosch radio station on the conventional T-3, making it blind, deaf and falling out of the tactical link.

5 people in T-3 gave excellent situational awareness. And in the T-60 the crew consisted of TWO people, and the commander was both the gunner and the loader.
In a battle, the one who saw the enemy first usually won. The T-60 had almost no chance. Hence the monstrous losses of our light tanks... Yes, it was still better than if these tanks had not existed at all. Much better. Therefore, Astrov is great for being able to give these vehicles to the front quickly, and the tankers who fought suffered colossal losses, but still restrained and beat the enemy, saving by his death a much larger number of infantrymen who would have died if not for these tanks... They are heroes and their memory will live forever.

[Altona]

“In a battle, the one who saw the enemy first usually won.”
-----------------------------
Well, of course. Therefore, ambush tactics were used more often. Even the then aerial reconnaissance vehicles such as the FV-189 easily detected clusters of armored vehicles.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Altona

Well, of course. Therefore, ambush tactics were used more often

Yes, but a tank cannot always be used as an anti-tank self-propelled gun. Sometimes he needs to support a counterattack and cover the infantry in the offensive. The chances of seeing anti-tank guns from a tank in this case... well, not exactly zero, but many times less than those of German tank crews

[Nic-2007]

The Fritz had T-1, T-2, and Czech ... tanks, but they were in no way better than the T-60.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Nic-2007

and they were no better than the T-60

Well, let's start with a simple thing - the Germans had almost no T-1 in combat units; they sent it to training units. And the T-2 already had 3 people in its crew. And the Czech is four. Therefore, they had an extremely significant superiority

[vovochkarzhevsky]

5 people in T-3 gave excellent situational awareness. And in the T-60 the crew consisted of TWO people, and the commander was both the gunner and the loader.
In a battle, the one who saw the enemy first usually won.

Firstly, a large crew is good where there are heavy weapons.
Secondly, what kind of loader is there when the automatic gun is belt-fed?
Thirdly, the one who reacts first wins. And in the commander-gunner chain there is always a delay.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

Thirdly, the one who reacts first wins. And in the commander-gunner chain there is always a delay.

Aren't you ashamed of such "brilliant" discoveries? Are you not aware that the presence of a commander in the tank, who has no other responsibilities other than observing the battlefield and directing the tank, was a huge advantage of German vehicles, which was recognized by absolutely everyone? Don't you know that the T-34-85, unlike the T-34-76, received a three-man turret, in which the commander had a place to be?
Well then, at least just think a little with your head and realize that the tank commander can see a bunch of everything important through his periscope device or through the triplex of the commander’s tower, while the gunner, with his narrow sight, will not see anything AT ALL, because he is busy with his own direct responsibilities - is that also beyond your capabilities?

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

Secondly, what kind of loader is there when the automatic gun is belt-fed?

I report - the crew of the Maxim infantry machine gun consisted of a commander, a gunner and a loader + 3-4 fighters carrying ammunition.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Aren't you ashamed of such "brilliant" discoveries? Are you not aware that the presence of a commander in the tank, who has no other responsibilities other than observing the battlefield and directing the tank, was a huge advantage of German vehicles, which was recognized by absolutely everyone? Don't you know that the T-34-85, unlike the T-34-76, received a three-man turret, in which the commander had a place to be?
Well then, at least just think a little with your head and realize that the tank commander can see a bunch of everything important through his periscope device or through the triplex of the commander’s tower, while the gunner, with his narrow sight, will not see anything AT ALL, because he is busy with his own direct responsibilities - is that also beyond your capabilities?

Maybe the whole point is that, unlike you, I studied military science not on the couch, but in a real way?
That’s why I don’t put an equal sign between the turrets of heavy/medium tanks and light ones. Where, in essence, it is no longer a tower, but a turret. Which is easier to aim yourself than to explain to the gunner where the target is. Is it so difficult to understand?

I report - the crew of the Maxim infantry machine gun consisted of a commander, a gunner and a loader + 3-4 fighters carrying ammunition.

Sit down, deuce. On the same, for example, MiG-3, four 12,7 machine guns, “Maxim” nervously smokes on the sidelines. And one pilot did it all.
Once again, an aviation cannon, 750 rounds of ammunition, what the hell are the carriers?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

Maybe the whole point is that, unlike you, I studied military science not on the couch, but in a real way?

In fact, you obviously slept through the entire training if you didn’t bother to learn the basics

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

On the same, for example, MiG-3, four 12,7 machine guns, “Maxim” nervously smokes on the sidelines. And one pilot did it all.

Thank you, you made my day :))))) Comparing a tank with an airplane is something not every preschool child would think of doing.
Be consistent then - why does a tank need so many people in its crew? One is enough :)))) Secure the autocannons rigidly, turn and aim with the whole body, and forward
But for reference, replacing the tape in the T-60 took 26 seconds. But on an airplane, the tapes do not change during a combat mission.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

In fact, you obviously slept through the entire training if you didn’t bother to learn the basics

Well, the emergency response rate of armchair strategists like you has always been at its best. This alone does not stop them from being armchair strategists.

Thank you, you made my day :))))) Comparing a tank with an airplane is something not every preschool child would think of doing.

It’s just that children have no idea that we are talking about the weapons themselves, and not where the tower with them is mounted.

Be consistent then - why does a tank need so many people in its crew? One is enough :)))) Secure the autocannons rigidly, turn and aim with the whole body, and forward

However, how everything is launched, such a great specialist does not know that aircraft guns are not only stationary, but also on turrets and towers.

But for reference, replacing the tape in the T-60 took 26 seconds. But on an airplane, the tapes do not change during a combat mission.

So what, is this a lot? Compare, for example, how long it takes to reload tank guns. After every shot.
Well, only you can carry a loader with you, and by cutting down the ammo capacity in order to change the tape several times.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Hmmm :)))) Sir, you have serious problems with your memory. You are unable to remember what you wrote in your previous comment. So I'll have to remind you

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

On the same, for example, MiG-3, four 12,7 machine guns, “Maxim” nervously smokes on the sidelines. And one pilot did it all.

And when I laughed at the fact that you manage to compare a tank with an airplane, you say

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

How is everything launched, such a great specialist does not know that aircraft guns are not only stationary, but also on turrets and towers

How many turrets and turrets were there on the MiG-3? :)))) None? What are you saying :)))) Didn’t you realize that on the planes that had them, the turrets were serviced by individual crew members?
Yes, you seem to understand this...

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

Where, in essence, it is no longer a tower, but a turret. Which is easier to aim yourself than to explain to the gunner where the target is. So hard to understand?

This is just easy for me to understand. It is no less easy for me to understand that the rear gunner using the turret mount was engaged... surprise, precisely with the turret mount. And only with a turret mount. He was not the commander of the plane, did not give orders where to fly, did not assess the situation around him, did not look for places to hide (there don’t seem to be many of them in the air, there are clouds, of course, but the pilots did all this), etc. etc., that is If we compare the functionality of pilots and tank crews, then the rear gunner/turret operator is a gunner.
So, the only case (WWII-level equipment) when one person could successfully combine both the functions of a gunner and a commander are cases where weapons are rigidly secured, as on the MiG-3.
Further. The gunner had... a turret. With machine guns or autocannons - but he had ONE type of weapon with which he controlled. And the T-60 commander had TWO of them - a 20-mm cannon and a DT machine gun. Which (surprise!) needed recharging. That is, even if the T-60 commander did not have to perform the functions of a commander, it would still be more difficult for him to work than for a rear gunner.

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

Well, only you can carry a loader with you, and by cutting down the ammo capacity in order to change the tape several times.

You are delusional, my dear. Quote the place where I suggested a loader on the T-60

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Hmmm :)))) Sir, you have serious problems with your memory. You are unable to remember what you wrote in your previous comment. So I'll have to remind you

Nope, this is your problem with understanding. The Mi-24V has a turret-mounted machine gun, that is, a movable one, but neither a loader nor a separate gunner is required.

And when I laughed at the fact that you manage to compare a tank with an airplane, you say

So what if the gun is an aircraft one?

How many turrets and turrets were there on the MiG-3? :)))) None? What are you saying :)))) Didn’t you realize that on the planes that had them, the turrets were serviced by individual crew members?
Yes, you seem to understand this...

And there are no gunners or loaders, everything is done by one shooter, and he searches for targets and carries out aiming.

This is just easy for me to understand. It is no less easy for me to understand that the rear gunner using the turret mount was engaged... surprise, precisely with the turret mount. And only with a turret mount. He was not the commander of the plane, did not give orders where to fly, did not assess the situation around him, did not look for places to hide (there don’t seem to be many of them in the air, there are clouds, of course, but the pilots did all this), etc. etc., that is, if we compare the functionality of pilots and tank crews, then the rear gunner/turret operator is the gunner.

That is, on a tank, the gunner himself, like a shooter, looks for targets, makes decisions himself, opens fire himself?

So, the only case (WWII-level equipment) when one person could successfully combine both the functions of a gunner and a commander are cases where weapons are rigidly secured, as on the MiG-3.

Is there only one person in the T-60? In case you forgot, the pilot also pilots the plane.

Further. The gunner had... a turret. With machine guns or autocannons - but he had ONE type of weapon with which he controlled. And the T-60 commander had TWO of them - a 20-mm cannon and a DT machine gun. Which (surprise!) needed recharging. That is, even if the T-60 commander did not have to perform the functions of a commander, it would still be more difficult for him to work than for a rear gunner.

You are a fan of looking back into history. So, in WWI, the fighter pilot also reloaded machine guns.

You are delusional, my dear. Quote the place where I suggested a loader on the T-60

Didn't you start a song about the difficulties of reloading?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

Didn't you start a song about the difficulties of reloading?

Quote, please. Where did I write that the T-60 needs a loader?

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

Nope, this is your problem with understanding. On the Mi-24V, the turret placement of the machine gun

:)))) You can’t blurt out anything as long as you don’t admit your own mistakes, right? First they compared the T-60 with the MiG-3, now the Mi-24V is in use

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

And there are no gunners or loaders, everything is done by one shooter, and he searches for targets and carries out aiming.

It’s clear that they went into unconsciousness.

[DenVB]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

I report - the crew of the Maxim infantry machine gun consisted of a commander, a gunner and a loader + 3-4 fighters carrying ammunition.

This is because I had to carry a machine gun. Cartridge carriers (in fact, there are two of them in the calculation) - their task is not to bring cartridges in battle, but to carry them on the march. Three people carry a machine gun, two or three carry cartridges. You need a lot of cartridges for a machine gun.

And, by the way, not a loader, but an assistant gunner, officially.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: DenVB

Cartridge carriers (in fact, there are two of them in the calculation) - their task is not to bring cartridges in battle, but to carry them on the march. Three people carry a machine gun, two or three carry cartridges.

In battle, the machine gun served the crew of the so-called. "combat unit" consisting of a non-commissioned officer and numbers: 1 (gunner), 2 (assistant gunner) and 3, 5 (ammunition carriers). The gunner was located behind the machine gun, to the right of the machine gun was his assistant feeding the tape, the cartridge carriers were behind, and the crew commander with binoculars according to the situation. The position for the rangefinder was determined by the commander. The remaining ranks of servants, along with the gigs, were supposed to be in a shelter, or, if there was none, at a distance as directed by the commander.
The non-commissioned officer gave commands to open fire on the target, indicating its location, setting the sight and rear sight. The gunner, aiming the machine gun, confirmed the aim with the report “Ready!” and opened fire. The assistant gunner not only fed and directed the tape, but also tracked the required number of shots in the tape when firing in bursts - when a burst of the required length was fired, he stopped the gunner by placing his hand on his shoulder. Ammo carriers delivered ammunition and removed empty ammunition belts and boxes from the position.
States changed over time, but the principle remained

[DenVB]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

In battle, the machine gun served the crew of the so-called. "combat unit" consisting of a non-commissioned officer

Didn't the "non-commissioned officer" confuse you? This is the same description from WWII. By the way, I can continue your copy-paste.

Each machine gun, both in the cavalry and in the infantry, was served by a servant of 10 people: led by a non-commissioned officer - the head of the machine gun, 7 numbers and two riders, who controlled the machine gun and cartridge gigs. There were differences in the distribution of responsibilities. In the infantry: No. 1 - gunner, No. 2 assistant gunner, No. 3 and No. 5 - cartridge carriers, No. 4 - rangefinder with a portable rangefinder, No. 6 - two-piece, No. 7 - spare. No. 2 had to carry a capping cylinder for 3 cartridge boxes and a container with water, No. 3 and No. 5 - bags with cartridges and boxes with spare parts for the machine gun. On the march, movement was usually carried out on foot or in gigs. In case of off-road conditions or in mountainous areas, it was possible to transfer machine guns and cartridges to packs.

In the horse-machine gun team: No. 1 - gunner, No. 2 - gunner's assistant, No. 3 - carrier, No. 4 - two-carrier, No. 5 and 6 - horse handlers, No. 7 and 8 - machine gun pack leaders, No. 9 and 10 - two cartridge pack leaders . All servants rode horses. Unlike dismounted machine gun teams, mounted rangefinders relied on the platoon to carry a man-portable rangefinder.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: DenVB

Didn't the "non-commissioned officer" confuse you? This is the same description from WWI times.

Certainly. The Maxim machine gun has not changed much since then, nor has its maintenance. In the Red Army, the rangefinder was essentially abolished, but everything else roughly corresponded to what I wrote below

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

States changed over time, but the principle remained

The first number fired, the second number loaded and fed the tape, the rest were carriers.

[DenVB]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

In the Red Army, the rangefinder was essentially abolished, but everything else roughly corresponded to what I wrote below

In reality, the same crew commander (or machine gun chief, according to the regulations) was not there. In any case, Shumilin never mentions such things. Everywhere it’s just “I gave the command to the machine gunner.”

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

The first number fired, the second number loaded and fed the tape, the rest were carriers.

Again, Shumilin (and other memoirists too) have no descriptions of such an Indian circus spinning around a machine gun in battle. He does not specifically describe the composition of the crew in battle, but one can understand that there are not many of them - a maximum of two people. But he does have a description of how a machine gun is carried:

Heavy machine guns are usually disassembled before leaving. Soldiers carry the shield, barrel and frame separately. The frame is the heaviest part of the machine gun. She is thrown onto the soldier’s back and he, staggering, walks with her, moving his legs heavily. Maxim's bed has fairly good running and durable wheels. On wheels, the frame can be easily driven along the ground. But out of old habit, for some reason the soldiers are forced to carry her on their backs. The soldiers, by the way, had nothing against this.

By the way, it’s interesting that Shumilin believed that both the shield and the sight on the Maxim were superfluous, they only got in the way in battle.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

The following information was given at the forum of military historical reenactors
According to the staff of the rifle regiment of the NKVD PV from July 26.07.1941, XNUMX.
In the rifle company (in the battalion - 9) of the rifle battalion (in the regiment - 3) the regiment had a machine gun platoon consisting of: a platoon commander, a political instructor, 2 machine gun chiefs, 10 machine gunners and 1 driver. Total 15 people. Heavy machine guns - 2, 3-ton vehicles - 1.
Or
I Machine gun crew number of people
1 machine gun chief - 1
2 Observer-rangefinder - 1
3 Gunner - 1
4 Assistant gunner - 1
5 Cartridge carrier - 2
6 Sled/driver - 1
Total - 7

[DenVB]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

The following information was given at the forum of military historical reenactors
According to the staff of the rifle regiment of the NKVD PV from July 26.07.1941, XNUMX.

I know it. According to the army staff, the machine gun squad had two machine guns and 12 people, with assigned roles. Only staffing schedules have little relation to actual combat practice. If a cartridge carrier sees that he is not really needed in a battle near a machine gun, he will not hang out there - the machine gun attracts enemy fire. He will simply act on the sidelines as a shooter.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: DenVB

If a cartridge carrier sees that he is not really needed in a machine gun battle, he won’t hang out there

Who can argue? But in battle, the machine gun was usually operated by two people. But the carriers - yes, were at a distance. Moreover, this was not against the charter, as I understand it. The task of the carriers is rather to carry cartridges before the battle, and only if the machine gun in battle has used up the available ammunition, to replenish it.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

In battle, the machine gun served the crew of the so-called. "combat unit" consisting of a non-commissioned officer and numbers: 1 (gunner), 2 (assistant gunner) and 3, 5 (ammunition carriers). The gunner was located behind the machine gun, to the right of the machine gun was his assistant feeding the tape, the cartridge carriers were behind, and the crew commander with binoculars according to the situation. The position for the rangefinder was determined by the commander. The remaining ranks of servants, along with the gigs, were supposed to be in a shelter, or, if there was none, at a distance as directed by the commander.
The non-commissioned officer gave commands to open fire on the target, indicating its location, setting the sight and rear sight. The gunner, aiming the machine gun, confirmed the aim with the report “Ready!” and opened fire. The assistant gunner not only fed and directed the tape, but also tracked the required number of shots in the tape when firing in bursts - when a burst of the required length was fired, he stopped the gunner by placing his hand on his shoulder. Ammo carriers delivered ammunition and removed empty ammunition belts and boxes from the position.
States changed over time, but the principle remained

You made my day by showing off your knowledge of the regulations of one thousand eight hundred shaggy years.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

flashing his knowledge of the statutes of one thousand eight hundred shaggy years.

Firstly, the Maxim entered service in the 1900s, not in the eight hundred.
Secondly, the procedure for its use remained virtually unchanged, with the exception of the rangefinder, which the Red Army considered unnecessary. And this happened (surprise!) because the design of Maxim did not fundamentally change, which is why the role of the second number (feeding the tape and loading) remained unchanged.
So it would be better to keep quiet when smart people talk

[DenVB]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Secondly, the procedure for its use remained virtually unchanged, with the exception of the rangefinder, which the Red Army considered unnecessary.

By the way, initially machine guns were classified as artillery, and machine gunners acted like artillerymen - in batteries. Then, during the wars, the machine guns themselves became lighter, and their combat use became more and more informal. I remember the memories of a machine gunner soldier, he described his own technique. He tied a rope to the frame of the machine gun, and when it was necessary to change position, he first ran to the new place himself, and then pulled the machine gun towards him.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Firstly, the Maxim entered service in the 1900s, not in the eight hundred.

In general, the first combat use was in 1893.

Secondly, the procedure for its use remained virtually unchanged, with the exception of the rangefinder, which the Red Army considered unnecessary. And this happened (surprise!) because the design of Maxim did not fundamentally change, which is why the role of the second number (feeding the tape and loading) remained unchanged.
So it would be better to keep quiet when smart people talk

I wonder what a “smart” person will say about this. Or replacing the carriage is not a fundamental change.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

In general, the first combat use was in 1893.

Vovochka, calm down already. That is, in your opinion, the requirements of the Russian regulations for machine gun crews were formed on the basis of the use of machine guns by Great Britain in the Transvaal?

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

Or replacing the carriage is not a fundamental change

Absolutely not important.

[mat-vey]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Absolutely not important.

How to say...on rough terrain, by hand...very important...

[AllX_VahhaB]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

I report - the crew of the Maxim infantry machine gun consisted of a commander, a gunner and a loader + 3-4 fighters carrying ammunition.

What does the Maxim machine gun have to do with it when we are talking about a tank? Do you want to say that the commander-loader equips the belts during the battle?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote from: AllX_VahhaB

What does the Maxim machine gun have to do with it when we are talking about a tank?

Because my "opponent" writes

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

Secondly, what kind of loader is there when the automatic gun is belt-fed?

To which I pointed out to the illiterate that the loaders even had machine guns. Therefore, the fact that the gun is automatic and that it is belt-fed cannot in itself justify the absence of a loader. Yes, there are autocannons that do not require a loader, but this is not because they are automatic and belt-type, but due to the design features and where they are placed and how they are used

Quote from: AllX_VahhaB

Do you want to say that the commander-loader equips the belts during the battle?

I said, I quote

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

5 people in T-3 gave excellent situational awareness. And in the T-60 the crew consisted of TWO people, and the commander was both the gunner and the loader.

That is, the T-60 commander had to command the tank, aim and fire the gun, and use the machine gun. I will not now look for the memoirs of a tanker who said that reloading the T-60 autocannon was an extremely tedious task, which is why usually the vehicle had to be taken out of battle for reloading, but I hope you won’t argue about the fact that diesel engines need to be reloaded in battle ?

[lynnot]

Why are you running into machine guns, and specifically machine guns? Then they would compare the tank crew and crew of a gun of a similar caliber, along with the crews of the tractor and ammunition carrier and all the materiel...

[Arkadich]

I think you went too far about the PzKpfw III.
In general, the T60 was a good tank for its purposes, but unfortunately it was often used in frontal attacks against much heavier German equipment and was saved only by the speed and courage of the crews.
Once again you will admire the courage of our grandfathers who went head-on to T-III and IV

[paul3390]

T60 was a good tank for its purposes

And for which ones? The base for it was the T-40, which was more or less appropriate as a reconnaissance aircraft. True, the meaning of a scout without a radio station is not very clear, but oh well. T-60 - lost the ability to swim, which means reconnaissance is at a disadvantage. The armor is thin, bulletproof. Cannon - the impact on infantry is minimal, armor penetration is not adequate at the current moment. So - what was the T-60 good for?

No - it has one plus. He was. At the most critical time and in acceptable quantities. At the very least, he could fight. And most importantly, the tank was produced at factories that did not have the most scarce equipment for the production of medium tanks... Well, then the T-70 went into production, for which Astrov received the Stalin Prize. Although - probably still based on the totality of merit. And for the T-60 - including.

[Arkadich]

I agree with you this is his biggest plus “he was”
That's how reconnaissance, raids, security were closer to him.
Well, as for the radio station, these are already reproaches of our time; in 41-42 r/st we had practically nothing anywhere, either in the air or on the ground.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: paul3390

No - it has one plus. He was. At the most critical time and in acceptable quantities. At the very least, he could fight. And most importantly, the tank was produced in factories that did not have the most scarce equipment for the production of medium tanks...

And there’s nothing to add

[Nic-2007]

And if you compare it with T1, T2, with the “Czechs”, then this tank was not bad...

[AllX_VahhaB]

Quote: Nic-2007

And if you compare it with T1, T2, with the “Czechs”, then this tank was not bad...

And with which Czechs specifically?

[DenVB]

Quote: paul3390

Cannon - minimal impact on infantry

Shumilin describes an episode when the Germans killed our entire regiment with anti-aircraft guns. Eight hundred people were left lying in the field.

Minimum, yes...

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: DenVB

Minimum, yes...

Yes. Because in the general case, when the infantry is dug in and is fighting a defensive battle, eight hundred people from the MZA cannot be crushed. And special cases don’t make the weather

[DenVB]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Because in the general case, when the infantry is dug in and is fighting a defensive battle, eight hundred people from the MZA cannot be crushed.

It may not be possible to crush eight hundred people, but it is quite possible to “extinguish” a machine gun point. Do not allow the enemy to raise their heads from the trench. Neither parapets nor sandbags will protect you from a twenty-millimeter shell.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: DenVB

but it’s quite possible to “extinguish” a machine gun point

Honestly, I don't see the point in arguing. Modern 30-mm ammunition is not considered sufficient to solve “tank” problems, and the fire density of a modern artillery system of this caliber is much higher than 20-mm of those times.
Strictly speaking, those 20-mm guns are an analogue of the more modern KPVT, and it has its own niche, of course, but it does not solve all the tasks of accompanying infantry

[DenVB]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

KPVT, and of course it has its own niche, but it does not solve all the tasks of infantry escort

Let's return to the beginning of the discussion and find that there is a certain range between “the effect on the infantry is minimal” and “all infantry escort tasks.” If someone said that the 20 mm machine gun is some kind of all-conquering prodigy, then it definitely wasn’t me. My opinion is that it was quite a formidable weapon for that time. Moreover, on a moving platform. Moreover, with protection at least from small fire. If used correctly, it could very well be candy.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: DenVB

My opinion is that it was quite a formidable weapon for that time

Well, let's dwell on the fact that our opinions on this issue do not coincide. You undoubtedly have every right to your opinion. And mine may be wrong

[mat-vey]

Quote: DenVB

My opinion is that it was quite a formidable weapon for that time.

A shot with a sub-caliber armor-piercing incendiary projectile (tungsten carbide core) penetrated 35 mm from 500 m, and a fragmentation projectile produced 50-60 fragments multiplied by the rate of fire... The first batches of T-60s entered the 21st tank brigade along with the T-34 / 57 (just for suppressing infantry and firing points). And according to the results of the battles near Kalinin, the T-60 survived the most (in %) of the brigade’s tanks....

[mat-vey]

Quote: paul3390

The armor is thin, bulletproof.

Armor varies from 10 mm to 35 mm...plus angles of inclination...PzB 38 basically held...

[solar]

and only the speed and courage of the crews saved him

He's just not very good at speed. Over rough terrain - 20-25 km per hour at best.
And this is not surprising - the engine power is 70 hp.
It’s like putting 5 tons of cargo on a Zhiguli-penny and seeing how it pulls.

[Arkadich]

He's just not very good at speed. Over rough terrain - 20-25 km per hour at best.

Yes you are right. I’m somehow used to looking mainly at the speed of 40 km/h.
Then all that was left was courage.

[KCA]

I read that the T-60 also exerted psychological pressure on the Wehrmacht tankers and infantry, because from a distance the silhouette was very similar to the T-34

[AndreyKam_Z]

It’s possible, although their silhouettes are different and the turret of the T60 is shifted, but as they say, the eyes are big because of fear, with poor visibility, it was probably due to surprise.
And when a tank is rushing towards you, there is no time for classification.

[Doctor]

After the Battle of Kursk and Prokhorovka they only realized what a fool they had played with light tanks. Meanwhile, by slightly changing the design and installing the 2nd ShVAK, it was possible to get a luxurious military anti-aircraft gun.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Arzt

After the Battle of Kursk and Prokhorovka they only realized what a fool they had played with light tanks.

No one was lying around - in the USSR before the war there were only 2 factories capable of producing medium tanks. Kharkovsky went to the Urals, Stalingradsky was lost. I don’t take Leningradsky and his HF into account. As soon as we could, we launched production of the T-34 at 5 factories, but until we were ready for this, the alternative was either light tanks or no tanks

[Altona]

After the Battle of Kursk and Prokhorovka they only realized what a fool they had played with light tanks.

--------------------------------
Light tanks were made by Gorky (now Nizhny Novgorod), in front of the UKER building at the Automobile Plant (Kirovskaya metro station) it stands on a pedestal. And medium tanks are Tankograd, Chelyabinsk. The entire city is lined with tanks on pedestals, plus the Victory Garden with an exhibition. In general, the tank as a product is a very interesting thing. And the people involved in the tanks too - Zaltsman, Joseph Kotin, Koshkin, Paton and the rest. There are also Shakespearean passions there.

[Nic-2007]

It's not about the tank, but the tactics and practice of its use.

[Waterways 672]

The engine was found suitable for the production of T-60 tanks. Shortly before the war, we began producing 6-cylinder Chrysler engines under license. Initially they wanted to install it on the emka, the old ones were rather weak. In general, modifications of this engine were not installed anywhere until the 90s. At the beginning of 42, they began to produce the more powerful T-70, it already had a twin engine, the SU-76 self-propelled gun also had a twin engine, and also the BTR-40, BTR-60. Cars - GAZ-51, GAZ-63, on the M-20 Pobeda 2 cylinders have already been cut off and others.

[Jager]

The T-60, like the T-70, was purely out of despair. Huge losses at the beginning of the war, when in 4 months another 3/4 of all armored vehicles were lost. Almost the entire production base was either destroyed, either under the influence of the enemy, or on wheels on the way to evacuation. We needed AT LEAST SOME kind of armored vehicle. As a temporary measure, place the production of ersatz tanks at automobile and locomotive factories.
The T-60 is actually an analogue of the Pz.II, which the Germans themselves did not favor. The combat value of such vehicles is relatively low. But their cost is much lower compared to “full-fledged” tanks. However, for infantry without anti-tank weapons, such tanks are a terrible thing. Or for raids on the enemy’s near rear.
Alas, we simply did not have time to set up production of the “normal” T-50. Only a few dozen cars were produced.

[paul3390]

they simply didn’t have time to set up production of the “normal” T-50

It's not that they didn't have time. The T-50 suffered engine damage. V-4 is half of V-2. Which, in turn, was extremely in demand, because it was installed on the T-34 and KV. Under these conditions, a decision was made in favor of medium and heavy tanks. Because the cost of half a diesel engine is not much less than a full one, and the combat value of the T-34 was recognized as significantly greater than the T-50.. Although in general the tank turned out to be good, it was just unlucky..

[Jager]

The fact is that the B-2 before the war was extremely poorly developed technologically and was unreliable. And B-4 has just started working on it. The engine was completely raw. And after the summer of 41, it became clear that all light tanks no longer fully meet modern requirements. In peacetime, the T-50 would have slowly found its niche, but in wartime it had no chance. Just as the T-34M had no chance.

[paul3390]

but he had no chance in the military

Well, why, in the light-medium tank category, the T-50 was one of the best, if not the best. It’s all beefier than the T-70 and quite comparable to the T-III... If only it had a different engine, it might have gone into production. Reviews about him from the front were quite decent.

[Amateur]

by 1935, the USSR had 35 thousand tanks in service,

I have always been interested in a question to which I still have not been able to find a qualified answer: where did these 35 thousand (well, maybe not 35, but only 10000 *) BT-2 (3, 5, 7) and T-26, which although they are called “morally outdated with weak armor and a gun...”, but which were head and shoulders superior to the T-60. And if the T-60 with 20mm cannon was able to show itself, then the BT-shki and T-26 could show themselves even better. But by that time, generals D. Pavlov, M. Popov, F. Kuznetsov, M. Kirponos, I. Tyulenev managed to put them somewhere.
* On June 22, 1941, there were officially 6290 tanks in Hitler’s army
On June 34, 22, there were officially 1941 T-1864 and KV tanks in the spacecraft.

[paul3390]

managed to get somewhere.

The question is: what condition was all this equipment in by 41? For it is known that the quality of the tanks themselves, produced in the 30s, was simply terrible, and spare parts for them were scarce, and they were serviced through a stump..

[Amateur]

Because it is known - the quality of the tanks themselves, produced in the 30s, was simply terrible, and spare parts for them were scarce, and they were serviced through a stump.

Who knows? To those who *(words prohibited in VO) these tanks or to you personally?

[paul3390]

Sometimes I have a habit of reading smart books. The same Svirin, for example. Which I highly recommend to you too.

[Amateur]

Which I highly recommend to you too.

You can read whatever you want. Even Svirin. Or Pelevin. The level of fantasy is approximately the same.
But the 6-volume “History of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union 1941-1945,” published in 1965 by the USSR Ministry of Defense, passes over this issue in silence. I also recommend reading it.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Amateur

I've always been interested in a question that I still haven't been able to find the answer to.

Strange. Everyone who wanted it found it. Maybe you just wanted it, but weren’t looking for it?

[Amateur]

Strange. Everyone who wanted it found it.

If you find it, please share your knowledge. It will be useful.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Amateur

If you find it, please share your knowledge.

Take the Red Army in June 1941 (Statistical collection), you can go here
https://istmat.org/node/26014
see the total number of tanks and their placement by district
https://istmat.org/node/26088
Further, by corps and divisions, the combat path of the MK is known - what is the problem?

[DenVB]

Quote: Amateur

T-26, which, although they are called “morally outdated with weak armor and a gun...”, were head and shoulders superior to the T-60.

The T-26 armor was frankly bulletproof - 15 mm.

[Amateur]

Exactly the same as the T-60. Only the T-26 had a 45mm cannon, and the sixty had a 20mm.

[DenVB]

Quote: Amateur

Exactly the same as the T-60.

The T-60 has a forehead, for example, 35 mm. It seems to me that 15 and 35 are not “exactly the same”.

[Doctor]

I have always been interested in a question to which I still have not been able to find a qualified answer: where did these 35 thousand (well, maybe not 35, but only 10000 *) BT-2 (3, 5, 7) and T-26, which although they are called “morally outdated with weak armor and a gun...”, but which were head and shoulders superior to the T-60. And if the T-60 with 20mm cannon was able to show itself, then the BT-shki and T-26 could show themselves even better. But by that time, generals D. Pavlov, M. Popov, F. Kuznetsov, M. Kirponos, I. Tyulenev managed to put them somewhere.
* On June 22, 1941, there were officially 6290 tanks in Hitler’s army
On June 34, 22, there were officially 1941 T-1864 and KV tanks in the spacecraft.

Yes, everything is there. The memoirs of the commander of the 8th mechanized corps, Ryabyshev, describe it well.

К June 1941 year, the corps had about 30 thousand personnel, 932 tank (according to the state it was supposed to be 1031). However, only 34 heavy and medium KV and T-169 tanks were delivered.

With the beginning of the war, the march to Sambir and further, in accordance with the strategic deployment plan, a strike on Lublin. But the Germans had their own plans.
Three days of marches in accordance with the stupid orders of the front headquarters, finally on June 26 the first battle in the Brody area. Everything we love.

In large groups of 50–60 aircraft, the enemy bombed formations of battle formations almost unhindered. Our planes were not in the air...
This was our first big miscalculation: when preparing for the offensive, we did not take into account the enemy’s superiority in the air.

We did not take this into account when deploying the corps command post in the forest, three kilometers from the eastern bank of the Slonówka River, to the left of the Brody-Leszniów-Berestechko road. The command post and corps headquarters departments were located in tents. This soon cost us dearly.

We also did not take into account another thing: the floodplain of the Slonówka River for two kilometers turned out to be very swampy and impassable for tanks. It was possible to advance only along a single road, and the bridge across the river was blown up, and the approaches to it were under heavy enemy artillery fire.

The result is encirclement, exit with the remainder in parts.

The very weakened units of the 8th Mechanized Corps now constituted the front reserve. Not counting those who left with the mobile group of N.K. Popel, in the 12th tank and 7th motorized divisions there remained just over 19 thousand soldiers and commanders, in total 207 tanks. Of these: KV - 43, T-34-31, BT-7-69, T-26-57, T-40-7, as well as 21 armored vehicles.

4 days of fighting - minus 700 tanks. Only in one mechanized corps.

[Amateur]

You are absolutely right. It was precisely this complete incompetence of Soviet generals in the initial period of the Second World War that I meant. But maybe not only professional incompetence, but also a conspiracy of the generals against Stalin. It is no coincidence that in the first few days of the war almost all Soviet aviation and tanks in the western direction were destroyed.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

The losses of the T-60 are primarily due to the incompetence of the commanders themselves. Who used the machines for other purposes.
The most telling example is when some smart guys used Su-76s as tanks, then complained that they were quickly knocked out. And they were very surprised when, unfortunately, only a few were shot for this. The same commanders who understood that the Su-76 was not a tank, but simply the same 76 mm cannon crossed with a tractor, were quite pleased with them.

[DenVB]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

The most telling example is when some smart guys used Su-76s as tanks, then complained that they were quickly knocked out.

Well, this applies not only to the Su-76. I read about cases like this. The commander of an infantry regiment is given a KV tank as reinforcement. The commander immediately sends a tank with the order to “knock the Germans out of the village of so-and-so.” The tank is leaving. One. After some time, the regiment commander reported to the top that “no more information was received from the tank crew.”

[olgherd]

Because for a number of reasons, the infantry commander perceives the assigned vehicle as a prodigy, which is in every way more effective than his soldiers. We see the same thing 80 years later, the 82A armored personnel carrier is sent to perform tasks that are not typical for it, because it has a cannon, and the infantry fighting vehicle plugs the tank’s niche. With the corresponding, unfortunately, result.

[Dedok]

Quote: Amateur

But the 6-volume “History of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union 1941-1945,” published in 1965 by the USSR Ministry of Defense, passes over this issue in silence. I also recommend reading it.

she bypasses a lot in silence...

[olgherd]

Quote: paul3390

but he had no chance in the military

Well, why, in the light-medium tank category, the T-50 was one of the best, if not the best. It’s all beefier than the T-70 and quite comparable to the T-III... If only it had a different engine, it might have gone into production. Reviews about him from the front were quite decent.

Pasholok writes that the tank was frankly raw, without even touching the engine. This is at the beginning of the war. And by the end, progress jumped so much that the place of the T-50 in the battle formations was taken by the T-34, which by that time had been well-functioning. KMK, it was even fortunate that they didn’t waste resources on the T-50; by the end of the war there would have been no point in it.

[solar]

in 1941, Soviet designers were tasked with developing a new generation light combat vehicle under the designation T-50. It is worth noting that the military leadership of the USSR at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War relied on light tanks, which were highly maneuverable and became a formidable weapon against enemy infantry.

T-50 and T-60 are machines of different levels.
The T-50 was made with an eye on the German T-Z, which was received before the war, and which made a strong impression on the Soviet military and designers.
The T-60 is an attempt to get some kind of analogue of the T-2.
Of course, the lack of crew in Soviet tanks significantly worsened the tank's combat capabilities.

[olgherd]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

Secondly, what kind of loader is there when the automatic gun is belt-fed?

Suddenly, the tapes are stored in 13 boxes, which still need to be charge. Along the way, observing the battlefield.

[Makarov Roman]

Legendary? Only in a negative sense, unfortunately (((it is clear that there were reasons for this, but this is not the best page of history, unfortunately

[futurohunter]

the author apparently wrote the article to tell everyone that he had heard something about the T-60 and knew nothing about the T-50.
Meanwhile, this tank requires detailed analysis. By and large, he did not come from a good life. And many tankers died on the T-60, and the Germans did not consider it a tank at all.
But the T-50 was just an extremely promising tank that could perfectly complement the T-34. In fact, it’s an analogue of the “thirty-four” in lightweight weight. Unfortunately, for a number of reasons, few of them were released, but he managed to fight. The history of the T-50 is still waiting for its researchers (even tank authorities have written little about it).